Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
The "issue" is that gullible bicyclists are encouraged by salesmen at LBS, manufacturer marketeers and some BF "experts" to replace serviceable helmets just because they allegedly may be defective due to" hidden damage" or invisible...
The real "issue" is that I wasn't ever talking about this.
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Buying parts for a hemet that appears fine to the owner sounds a little OCD to me. A helmet that appears fine and shows no visible damage does not need to be replaced even at a "discount,"even if the manufacturer "might offer a crash plan."
You criticize people for replacing parts yet it works
against "replacing a fine helmet unnecessarily".
This doesn't make sense.
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
As you have pointed out, the "support" existing of pads or restraining hardware, if made available at all, is only for a limited time and may no longer be offered for helmets beyond the arbitrary helmet end-of safe use/replacement date fabricated by the manufacturer.
Buying parts for a hemet that appears fine to the owner sounds a little OCD to me.
But you think it's OCD for people to want to replace broken parts. Stop blathering.